ved before his arrival, alleging the danger of quarrels and
seduction, if his troops were allowed to mix with those who had been so
recently engaged in rebellion. The order was instantly made; but the men
refused[b] to obey. Why, they asked, were they to leave their quarters for
the accommodation of strangers? Why were they to be sent from the capital,
while their pay was several weeks in arrear? The royalists laboured to
inflame the mutineers, and Lambert was on the watch, prepared to place
himself at their head; but the distribution of a sum of money appeased
their murmurs; they consented to march; and the next morning[c] the general
entered at the head of his army, and proceeded to the quarters assigned to
him at Whitehall.[2]

Soon after his arrival, he was invited to attend and

[Footnote 1: Price, 754. Merc. Polit. No. 604. Philips, 595. Journals, Jan.
16.]

[Footnote 2: Price, 755, 757, 758. Jour. Jan. 30. Skinner, 219-221.
Philips, 594, 595, 596. Clar. Pap. iii. 666, 668. Pepys, i. 19, 21.]

[Sidenote a: A.D. 1660. Jan. 28.]
[Sidenote b: A.D. 1660. Feb. 2.]
[Sidenote c: A.D. 1660. Feb. 3.]

receive the thanks of the house. A chair had been placed for him within
the bar: he stood uncovered behind it; and, in reply[a] to the speaker,
extenuated his own services, related the answers which he had given to
the addresses, warned the parliament against a multiplicity of oaths and
engagements, prayed them not to give any share of power to the Cavaliers or
fanatics, and recommended to their care the settlement of Ireland and the
administration of justice in Scotland. If there was much in this speech
to please, there was also much that gave offence. Scot observed that the
servant had already learned to give directions to his masters.[1]

As a member of the council of state, he was summoned to abjure the house of
Stuart, according to the late order of parliament. He demurred. Seven of
the counsellors, he observed, had not yet abjured, and he wished to know
their reasons, for the satisfaction of his own conscience. Experience had
shown that such oaths were violated as easily as they were taken, and to
him it appeared an offence against Providence to swear never to acquiesce
in that which Providence might possibly ordain. He had given the strongest
proofs of his devotion to parliament: if these were not sufficient, let
them try him again; he was ready to give more.[2]

[Footnote 1: Journals, Feb. 6. New Parl. Hist. ii